I've changed my mind on live debates, and lean more towards them being a waste of time. I understand why with a lot of prep they could be valuable...
That said, in high-stakes issues where people are unlikely to cooperate with their opposition, there's not going to be any meaningful progress made.
If you think a live debate would be useful on a divisive topic, my recommendation would be to at minimum have someone (or a group) do the research to be able to solidly steelman (not strawman) the other side.
But even then, I'm more partial to written/hypertext form than live performances.
Live debates, perhaps more waste of time than progressive / improving things...?
@gabriel I believe I have the way in debate because I individualise it and bare / bend with them while feeling ok about myself - so this specifically involves more:
█ believing in the other person and staying on their side while try other ways and comments to see what they say
█ checking the basic meanings of words according to all as a ping pong in discovery itself.
█ ad-hoc / flexible mode of comms rather than fixed which is why I can / talked for hours with at least one of you here or even with Fediverse as complete strangers
█ holding my own value and fun rather than only needing confirmation from the other so I have a bit more tolerance or ability to talk / satellite around it to find better entry point and not get stuck or lock horns.
Hope this helps... Finding the right flexible person helps. Choose me :]
